by mafiastudent » Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:00 pm
Despite Being Acquitted of Murder, Vague RICO Language Keeps Martin Taccetta Behind Bars
An “unconstitutionally vague” New Jersey state law may be the reason Martin Taccetta is serving a life sentence for two second-degree extortion convictions related to a murder charge he was acquitted of in 1993.
In a recent filing with the appellate division of New Jersey Superior Court, attorney Lawrence Lustberg wrote that “despite being acquitted of having any involvement” in the 1984 murder of Vincent Craporatta, prosecutors were able to “manipulate RICO sentencing provisions” in order to sentence Taccetta to life imprisonment “just as if he had as if he had been convicted of that murder.”
Taccetta has been fighting to have his life sentence vacated for more than 20 years and hopes that this new appeal will give him the relief he seeks.
At issue is the term “crime of violence” and whether or not it can be applied to Taccetta’s extortion convictions.
Lustberg wrote that at the time of trial, racketeering was a second-degree offense unless it involved “a crime of violence” – and the only “crime of violence” in the case was Craparotta’s murder.
Both the extortions and the murder were the predicate acts of the first-degree racketeering charge. And after Taccetta was acquitted of murder, his lawyer claims, he should only have been sentenced as a second-degree offender and given a maximum of 20 years in prison.
But at Taccetta’s 1993 sentencing hearing, the trial court threw defense a curveball when it decided to”enhance” the racketeering conviction from a second-degree offense to a first-degree one based on its interpretation of the “unconstitutionally vague” New Jersey state law defining a “crime of violence.”
Prosecutors have maintained that the sentencing court was justified in the enhancement because the “form of extortion” Taccetta was convicted of involved “purposely threatening to inflict bodily harm.”
The Craporatta Murder
Craporatta was a Lucchese family “associate” who was killed, prosecutors said, because he failed to make “timely payments” from the profits of a video poker machine business owned by his two nephews, Pat and Vincent Storino.
According to court documents, after Craporatta’s murder, a conflict arose between members of the Lucchese family and the Bruno-Scarfo family as to who would “claim” the Storino brothers and their business. Eventually, through a series of meetings, the conflict was peacefully resolved and the Storino brothers were to be “with” the Lucchese family.
Although the government’s star witness, Phil Leonetti, former “underboss” of the Bruno-Scarfo family, testified that Taccetta was present at some of the meetings to resolve the conflict, he was not involved in any of the discussions.
It was Lucchese “captain” – turned government informant Anthony Accetturo who engaged in discussions with the Sturino brothers. And it was Accetturo who “assigned” Thomas Ricciardi, a “soldier” in the family (and who also turned government informant) to oversee the Storinos’ business.
During a meeting with Accetturo, Pat Sturino expressed “fear” about Ricciardi being “assigned” to them because he was the one who had killed their uncle. Accetturo assured them that as long as they continued to make payments, the Sturinos had “nothing to worry about.”
Lustberg wrote in his filing that after the jury acquitted Taccetta of Craporatta’s murder, prosecutors changed their “position” on the “crime of violence” interpretation arguing at the sentencing hearing that a “crime of violence” was “not limited to physical contact or injury.”
But yet, prosecutors produced no evidence during trial showing that Taccetta engaged in any violence or made any threats, implied or otherwise, towards the Storino brothers.
Unbounded Scope
In his reply brief, Lustberg argues that New Jersey’s RICO sentencing statute is so “vague,” it can’t even differentiate between “extortions involving violence and those involving no violence at all.”
And although three U.S. Supreme Court decisions (United States v. Davis, Sessions v. Dimaya, and Johnson v. United States) forbids enhanced penalties” for a “crime of violence,” the vagueness of the New Jersey’s statute gave the sentencing court an “unbounded scope” to impose an “unconstitutional life sentence” for Taccetta after he was convicted of two non-violent extortions and acquitted of any involvement in the only violent charge in the case – the Craporatta murder.
Taccetta’s current appeal is pending in the appellate division of New Jersey’s Superior Court.
Despite Being Acquitted of Murder, Vague RICO Language Keeps Martin Taccetta Behind Bars
An “unconstitutionally vague” New Jersey state law may be the reason Martin Taccetta is serving a life sentence for two second-degree extortion convictions related to a murder charge he was acquitted of in 1993.
In a recent filing with the appellate division of New Jersey Superior Court, attorney Lawrence Lustberg wrote that “despite being acquitted of having any involvement” in the 1984 murder of Vincent Craporatta, prosecutors were able to “manipulate RICO sentencing provisions” in order to sentence Taccetta to life imprisonment “just as if he had as if he had been convicted of that murder.”
Taccetta has been fighting to have his life sentence vacated for more than 20 years and hopes that this new appeal will give him the relief he seeks.
At issue is the term “crime of violence” and whether or not it can be applied to Taccetta’s extortion convictions.
Lustberg wrote that at the time of trial, racketeering was a second-degree offense unless it involved “a crime of violence” – and the only “crime of violence” in the case was Craparotta’s murder.
Both the extortions and the murder were the predicate acts of the first-degree racketeering charge. And after Taccetta was acquitted of murder, his lawyer claims, he should only have been sentenced as a second-degree offender and given a maximum of 20 years in prison.
But at Taccetta’s 1993 sentencing hearing, the trial court threw defense a curveball when it decided to”enhance” the racketeering conviction from a second-degree offense to a first-degree one based on its interpretation of the “unconstitutionally vague” New Jersey state law defining a “crime of violence.”
Prosecutors have maintained that the sentencing court was justified in the enhancement because the “form of extortion” Taccetta was convicted of involved “purposely threatening to inflict bodily harm.”
The Craporatta Murder
Craporatta was a Lucchese family “associate” who was killed, prosecutors said, because he failed to make “timely payments” from the profits of a video poker machine business owned by his two nephews, Pat and Vincent Storino.
According to court documents, after Craporatta’s murder, a conflict arose between members of the Lucchese family and the Bruno-Scarfo family as to who would “claim” the Storino brothers and their business. Eventually, through a series of meetings, the conflict was peacefully resolved and the Storino brothers were to be “with” the Lucchese family.
Although the government’s star witness, Phil Leonetti, former “underboss” of the Bruno-Scarfo family, testified that Taccetta was present at some of the meetings to resolve the conflict, he was not involved in any of the discussions.
It was Lucchese “captain” – turned government informant Anthony Accetturo who engaged in discussions with the Sturino brothers. And it was Accetturo who “assigned” Thomas Ricciardi, a “soldier” in the family (and who also turned government informant) to oversee the Storinos’ business.
During a meeting with Accetturo, Pat Sturino expressed “fear” about Ricciardi being “assigned” to them because he was the one who had killed their uncle. Accetturo assured them that as long as they continued to make payments, the Sturinos had “nothing to worry about.”
Lustberg wrote in his filing that after the jury acquitted Taccetta of Craporatta’s murder, prosecutors changed their “position” on the “crime of violence” interpretation arguing at the sentencing hearing that a “crime of violence” was “not limited to physical contact or injury.”
But yet, prosecutors produced no evidence during trial showing that Taccetta engaged in any violence or made any threats, implied or otherwise, towards the Storino brothers.
Unbounded Scope
In his reply brief, Lustberg argues that New Jersey’s RICO sentencing statute is so “vague,” it can’t even differentiate between “extortions involving violence and those involving no violence at all.”
And although three U.S. Supreme Court decisions (United States v. Davis, Sessions v. Dimaya, and Johnson v. United States) forbids enhanced penalties” for a “crime of violence,” the vagueness of the New Jersey’s statute gave the sentencing court an “unbounded scope” to impose an “unconstitutional life sentence” for Taccetta after he was convicted of two non-violent extortions and acquitted of any involvement in the only violent charge in the case – the Craporatta murder.
Taccetta’s current appeal is pending in the appellate division of New Jersey’s Superior Court.